M14 Shooter

My opponent failed to notice that after characterizing the gun control argument as generally being one of the individual right v collective right, I immediately said that THIS discussion didn’t deal with who had the right, but what weapons were protected:


The discussion presented here, however, does not deal with the question as to whose right is protected by the 2nd amendment, but what weapons might fall under its purview


As such, my opponent is trying to argue that I am mischaracterizing a position that I, myself, declared irrelevant to the discussion and that when presenting my ACTUAL argument, a position on what weapons are protected by the 2nd, a position that I never took. Yes indeed, my opponent is grasping at straw men.

Thus, the remainder of his argument to this effect has been sufficiently addressed in that he is arguing against a point that I declared irrelevant to the issue I presented and was not included in my –actual- argument concerning the issue I presented. He may continue to shadow box at his leisure, however.

My opponent is trying to tell –me- that –I- don’t know what the subject is when –I- chose the subject and laid out –my- position regarding same. This is, of course, my opponent trying to change the subject from what I presented to what he wants to argue.

We all know that my opponent personally agrees with me – which is why he is trying to change the subject away from what I argued to something that I did not. He doesn’t have the mental ability to create a sound argument contrary to mine, and he’s trying desperately to avoid displaying that inability for all to see.

And yet, my opponent has –refused- to argue from that position. Instead, he has made feeble attempts to show that the “liberal” position agrees with mine and with everyone else’s, even after being shown that prominent liberals and gun control organizations do NOT agree with me or everyone else.

Really, that’s all that needs to be said here – I picked the subject, and my opponent rather pathetically avoided it by trying to change it. By his own words, avoiding the subject makes him a coward.

Regarding the ACTUAL issue, that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, my opponent has shown nothing.

He –has- demonstrated that there is a poll that shows that liberals and conservatives believe X Y and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. This proves nothing other than there is a poll that shows liberals and conservatives believe X, Y, and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. His sole support for his position that “there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue” is this poll, and at best, it is lacking.

All that’s necessary to show my opponent as a coward is to show that he did not argue the liberal position against the position I presented. This is clearly the case, as shall be demonstrated.

This is, of course, hogwash. My opponent has cited one, just one poll. He claims this reflects the opinion of “millions” which is, of course, silly.

He then refuses to accept that the organizations I cited, being the leading examples of the anti-gun side, are indeed representative samples of the liberal anti-gun argument. I have to wonder that if these organizations do NOT effectively and legitimately illustrate the liberal argument regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd, then what organizations do?

He –then- tries to dismiss the samplings I provided from leading liberal Democratic presidential candidates as ‘anecdotal’ and therefore not representative of the liberal/Democratic side of the debate regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd – forgetting, of course, that as leading candidates for high office, especially those who are already elected to office, are necessarily indicative of not only the party they represent and the ideology of that party, but their own ideology and, to at least a significant degree, the ideology of the people that voted for them. In that, the people noted indeed represent the opinions of millions – a claim based on concrete voting results rather extrapolated from some poll.

My opponent wants to dismiss quotes from people and organizations as the ‘fallacy of anecdotal evidence’, which is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to nullify information that damages his position. IF one is to establish what the liberal position on a given subject, one MUST examine what the liberals themselves say about that subject. My opponent tries to dismiss this approach because he knows that examining what liberals say and do and compare that to what conservatives say and so will quickly and easily show how wrong he is.

So, to –further- emphasize my point, I will provide MORE evidence that the liberal position, as illustrated by liberal Democrats elected to office and/or running for their party’s nomination for President, is NOT one that holds that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ and NOT in broad agreement with that of conservatives and/or Republicans.

Remember that Hillary, Obama and Edwards, all noted mainstream liberal democrats, and all elected senators,– one of which was the Dem nomine for VP in 2004 – all of whom having received millions of votes, have already been shown to NOT agree that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. To them, I shall add:

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), an elected representative in the state of Ohio, receiving 138,000 votes in 2006, and as liberals as liberals get, is “is currently drafting [federal] legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians”.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich

John Kerry (D-MA), an elected senator and past Democratic nominee for President, receiving 59,028,109 votes in the 2004 election, characterized as the 12th most liberal in the senate (John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis ), says that “I am for the assault weapons ban”
John Kerry on Gun Control

Al Gore, former VP and the democratic party’s nominee for president in 2000, receiving received 50,996,116 to that end, and noted liberal, supports a “complete ban on junk guns and assault weapons”
Al Gore on Gun Control

Bill Clinton, Democrat, Liberal – elected twice as President of the United States, garnering a total of 92,309,931 votes, proudly signed into law an act “that bans the sale of 19 assault weapons-guns made expressly for killing people” (Bill Clinton on Gun Control) and professed, even vowed, that he “will not see that ban repealed”
January 1995 State of the Union Address (Prepatory Speech)

Mark Dayton (D-MN), characterized as THE most liberal senator (John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis ), having received 1181553 votes in 2000, supports “current law, including the ban on assault weapons”. He also supports making it a “federal offense to possess and discharge a gun within 1,000 feet of a school”.
Mark Dayton on Gun Control

And the list goes on and on and on – each of the 10 most liberal senators (John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis) all support the banning of ‘assault weapons’, and therefore do NOT agree with me.:

2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
Supported re-authorization of AW ban
Paul Sarbanes on Gun Control

3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
Co-sponsored a bill to re-authorize the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Senate to Vote on Feinstein-Warner-Schumer Assault Weapons Ban Extension Next Tuesday

4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
Supports the ‘assault weapon’ ban and promises to “fight day in and day out to enact the toughest possible gun control”
Jon Corzine on Gun Control

5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Co-sponsored a bill to re-authorize the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Senate to Vote on Feinstein-Warner-Schumer Assault Weapons Ban Extension Next Tuesday

6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Co-sponsored a bill to re-authorize the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Senate to Vote on Feinstein-Warner-Schumer Assault Weapons Ban Extension Next Tuesday

7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Voted to renew the ‘assault weapon’ ban
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

__________________
Any time someone says there should be a prior restraint on gun ownership, ask them what they think about a person's right to talk to known al Qaeda operatives without fear of being listened in on.